mistrial unless the prosecution is stretching it every point, to try to get this, this is a weak circumstantial case. i understand. they re going to have problems. understand your point but i don t think the side bars are a result of that. whenever there is testimony that is daming testimony there will be objection. there has to be a proper ruling. as a result you have a sidebar in order to determine whether it is admissible evidence or up ad missable. but you have to concede . uma: what do you think the effect of testimony is going to have? she doubted that she died from simply falling. i understand that she also said it probably couldn t have been knocked out from simply falling in the bathtub. number one people get knocked out from falling in bathtubs all the time. takes different amounting pressure to knock different people out. i don t know how the pathologist couldn t say a person could not be knocked
in any case you don t view any evidence in isolation or in a vacuum. you view it against the backdrop and context of the whole and what this shows it shows motivation and shows intent by the defendant, mr. peterson to want her dead. what you do with that, uma, you put that against the backdrop of bloom s testimony. remember he was a doctor who did the autopsy who said this was murder. then you look at yesterday s testimony by dr. case who is the pathologist and she is a professor and a chief medical examiner from missouri who said a very compelling things. one you don t get a gash like that in a bathtub. two, if you do it doesn t render you unconscious. the gash she got was who are sontal? joey? yes, duane? you know the prosecution is stretching in this case. the defense will put pathologists up and say the exact opposite thing of what the pathologist said for the prosecution. you don t have this many side bars and don t have this many motions for
the publicity tainted the jury pool. joining me now from sa san francisco is attorney michael car doza, a consultant for peterson s trial team. thanks for being with us this evening. sure, judge. the guy is convicted in 2004, sentenced in 2005. why is it taking00 so long for them to even file an appeal let alone sentence him to death? well, keep in mind someone that s on death row in the appellate attorney has to read all the transcripts. that includes all the side bars that they had during the trial, all the in chambers that they had including the voir dire, the opening statements. oh, come on, michael, you and ipe have both tried cases, and u could put this together yourself in less than a month. oh, come on. not for a death penalty case. no, i disagree with you. to do it properly, you take your time expwhrait years to file an appeal. you don t want to make a
secretaryial staff and clerical staff. as much as they disagree and there strong disagreements and some quite emotional, the integrity of the court and credibility is at stake in the avoidance of premature disclosure and also in the decision itself. the credibility and value of the court is very much in play. one of the more remarkable side bars and the branch of government we know doesn t leak. democrat from connecticut, thanks for coming on. thank you. up next, the brand-new poll numbers we told you about in three swing states that some people wonder, are they a part of the battle ground or not? the play in the northeast and the industrial midwest. we are following the big developing news waiting for word from the supreme court on the
dear john. in it she bashed her ex-boyfriend john mayer. he says he was humiliated when the song came out. mayer describes the tune as cheap song writing. while we hate to take sides between two of music greats. america live has to be on the signed of the brilliant john mayer because of this. i m john mayer and i m the world s biggest megyn kelly fan. with her incredible legal knowledge i have no objection to a play on words to her. i could make puns about side